What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (8 Viewers)

I seriously don't understand the argument that the timing of the Manafort charges suggests something inappropriate.  Manafort was closely linked to the President.  He ran his campaign.  We'd worry about the independence of the justice department investigating any close associate of the President.  

It turns out that we know that Rosenstein approved the investigation into these charges (he testified to that effect in open session of Congress), so they're completely legal under the Special Counsel regulations.  But just as a gestalt matter, how would this be different than investigation the McDougalls for Whitewater?  The conflict of interest concern is exactly the same.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
The story about the lawyer from the WH Counsel's office not correcting the record is extraordinary, but I think it speaks far worse of that lawyer than Trump.  A good lawyer certainly should provide counsel that extends beyond just what the law requires.  But you can't let your client operate with a misunderstanding of the law, even if you worry that your client will do something stupid if he understands what he's legally allowed to do. 

And shielding Trump from the actual state of the law didn't really protect him.  He had access to lots of other lawyers who could tell him the FBI Director served at the pleasure of the President.  The professional approach is to start with that fact and then make it clear that while that is true, certain circumstances can provide a pretty big "BUT"  To mention that Nixon had the power to remove Archibald Cox, but that doing so for an improper purpose can be considered abuse of office and that's something that makes it into articles of impeachment.  And to mention that that even if firing Comey is lawful, it can still be considered as evidence when trying to determine the context of other actions.  So that if there were to be questions about whether Trump asked a witness to lie to the FBI, the Comey firing would be part of the prism through which a Grand Jury would look at the other conduct.  And when 5 or 10 actions that could either be construed as lawful or an attempt to stop an investigation before it reaches Trump or his closest associates exist, the sheer volume of those ambiguous actions make it more likely that they will be interpreted in the least favorable light.  
Click to expand...
I think that's valid when you're dealing with pretty much anyone not named Trump but Trump is a special egg and doesn't play by the rules/norms/conventions and does what he wants regardless of advice given...yes, they may have withheld information or told him false information but it was likely in an effort to protect Trump because Trump has been able to do whatever he wants his entire life by lying, cheating his way out of things without necessarily thinking of the long term consequences (which his legal counsel was).  Pretty fascinating that you have to try and save someone from themselves and they still couldn't do it.  

At the end of the day I don't think it would've mattered what advice anyone gave him...he wanted Comey fired to shut down the investigation and he would've done what it took to get what he wanted.

 
Rove! said:
Which is exactly what the dossier (Russian disinformation sourced from Russian spies) and the Mueller investigation are accomplishing.
Click to expand...
fair point...we should let the president collude and make secret deals to help him win the election to drop sanctions and not investigate afterward because the truth may be divisive....

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I seriously don't understand the argument that the timing of the Manafort charges suggests something inappropriate.  Manafort was closely linked to the President.  He ran his campaign.  We'd worry about the independence of the justice department investigating any close associate of the President.  

It turns out that we know that Rosenstein approved the investigation into these charges (he testified to that effect in open session of Congress), so they're completely legal under the Special Counsel regulations.  But just as a gestalt matter, how would this be different than investigation the McDougalls for Whitewater?  The conflict of interest concern is exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Whitewater was investigated under the Independent Counsel law which had the oversight of a three judge panel.

Mueller works for the DOJ and the only oversight he seems to have is Rosenstein, who is also a key participant in the firing of Comey. If the firing of Come6 is at all a subject of the Mueller investigation, how can Rosenstein not recuse himself?  How can he oversee an investigation into an act which he participated in?  

 
Banger said:
fair point...we should let the president collude and make secret deals to help him win the election to drop sanctions and not investigate afterward because the truth may be divisive....
Click to expand...
The only evid nice if any deals involve Putin donations to the Clinton Foundation, stock deals with Podesta, plus Uranium One and Skolkovo.

not to mention that the Russian spies were indirectly funded by dollars that came from the clinton campaign

there are your deals...there is your collusion...there is your treason

 
Rove! said:
The only evid nice if any deals involve Putin donations to the Clinton Foundation, stock deals with Podesta, plus Uranium One and Skolkovo.

not to mention that the Russian spies were indirectly funded by dollars that came from the clinton campaign

there are your deals...there is your collusion...there is your treason
Click to expand...
There's a thread for this.  I started it.  It's under investigation.

 
Rove! said:
Whitewater was investigated under the Independent Counsel law which had the oversight of a three judge panel.

Mueller works for the DOJ and the only oversight he seems to have is Rosenstein, who is also a key participant in the firing of Comey. If the firing of Come6 is at all a subject of the Mueller investigation, how can Rosenstein not recuse himself?  How can he oversee an investigation into an act which he participated in?  
Click to expand...
I think this is a good question. Why hasn't Rosenstein also recused himself? Especially if Mueller is looking into obstruction (as I believe the Post has alleged).

 
Bucky86 said:
So, Mueller has Priebus' hand-written notes? Any chance he flipped? Remember the strange moment during Trump's Saudi Arabia trip where he went home early or something? Some of the wackier people on twitter claimed he had been arrested. Makes you wonder?
Click to expand...
I'd say there's definitely a decent chance..he's a career party guy with no ties or love for Trump...I think anyone who's smart, knows things and doesn't want to go to jail for a guy who will throw you under the bus and back up over you in a moments notice should talk to Mueller...

 
Rove! said:
Whitewater was investigated under the Independent Counsel law which had the oversight of a three judge panel.

Mueller works for the DOJ and the only oversight he seems to have is Rosenstein, who is also a key participant in the firing of Comey. If the firing of Come6 is at all a subject of the Mueller investigation, how can Rosenstein not recuse himself?  How can he oversee an investigation into an act which he participated in?  
Click to expand...
Rosenstein didn't participate in the firing of Comey.  He wrote a memo, as asked, about irregularities in the way Comey handled the Clinton investigation and the ways those decisions likely prejudiced Clinton.  Unlike Sessions, there's no regulation that directly addresses the situation.  Unless he's likely to be called as a witness, I don't think recusal is required or warranted.

 
Rove! said:
The only evid nice if any deals involve Putin donations to the Clinton Foundation, stock deals with Podesta, plus Uranium One and Skolkovo.

not to mention that the Russian spies were indirectly funded by dollars that came from the clinton campaign

there are your deals...there is your collusion...there is your treason
Click to expand...
great to know...I'll await the indictments... :popcorn:

 
whoknew said:
Rove! said:
Mueller works for the DOJ and the only oversight he seems to have is Rosenstein, who is also a key participant in the firing of Comey. If the firing of Come6 is at all a subject of the Mueller investigation, how can Rosenstein not recuse himself?  How can he oversee an investigation into an act which he participated in?  
Click to expand...
I think this is a good question. Why hasn't Rosenstein also recused himself? Especially if Mueller is looking into obstruction (as I believe the Post has alleged).
Click to expand...
I know of no evidence that Rosenstein was a key participant, or any kind of participant, in the firing of Comey. He wrote a memo critical of how Comey handled the investigation into Hillary's emails. The memo did not weigh the pros and cons of firing him or come to any conclusion about whether he should be fired.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I know of no evidence that Rosenstein was a key participant, or any kind of participant, in the firing of Comey. He wrote a memo critical of how Comey handled the investigation into Hillary's emails. The memo did not weigh the pros and cons of firing him or come to any conclusion about whether he should be fired.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the Times article counts as "evidence" or if you're just talking about legally admissible evidence, but ...
 

Earlier that day, Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, had pulled one of Mr. McGahn’s deputies aside after a meeting at the Justice Department. Mr. Rosenstein told the aide that top White House and Justice Department lawyers needed to discuss Mr. Comey’s future. It is unclear whether this conversation was related to the effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Comey.

...

On Monday, May 8, Mr. Trump met with Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein to discuss firing Mr. Comey, and Mr. Rosenstein agreed to write his own memo outlining why Mr. Comey should be fired. Before writing it, he took a copy of the letter that Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller had drafted during the weekend in Bedminster.

The president fired Mr. Comey the following day.
Click to expand...

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I know of no evidence that Rosenstein was a key participant, or any kind of participant, in the firing of Comey. He wrote a memo critical of how Comey handled the investigation into Hillary's emails. The memo did not weigh the pros and cons of firing him or come to any conclusion about whether he should be fired.
Click to expand...
This article has some more info.

It later emerged that in May 2017, just before Trump fired Comey, Trump and an aide drafted an “angry, meandering” termination letter to Comey at the president’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The Bedminster letter was never sent. But in a meeting in the Oval Office soon after it was drafted, Rosenstein “was given a copy of the original letter and agreed to write a separate memo for Mr. Trump about why Mr. Comey should be fired,” according to the New York Times.

In short, before the Schmidt story, we knew that Rosenstein was intimately involved in the president’s decision to fire Comey. Rosenstein’s memo was used as a pretext to fire Comey; Rosenstein knew that the president wanted to fire Comey; and he read the Bedminster draft before he wrote his own memorandum.

---

Schmidt’s story yesterday added two details that make it even harder to see why Rosenstein does not have a conflict. First, Schmidt reports that, contrary to White House claims, Trump’s Bedminster letter mentioned the Russia investigation in its first sentence and described it as “fabricated and politically motivated.” Since Rosenstein saw that letter before he wrote his memorandum—and perhaps even discussed the contents with the president or attorney general prior to drafting his own second memo—he knew that the president had the Russia investigation on his mind in wanting to fire Comey. He wrote his memorandum about Comey in light of this knowledge. 

Second, after reporting that Attorney General Sessions “wanted one negative article a day in the news media about Mr. Comey” and that a Sessions staffer approached a Hill staffer about whether he or she was in possession of any “derogatory information” about Comey, a claim denied by the attorney general’s spokesperson, Schmidt added:

Earlier that day, Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, had pulled one of Mr. McGahn’s deputies aside after a meeting at the Justice Department. Mr. Rosenstein told the aide that top White House and Justice Department lawyers needed to discuss Mr. Comey’s future. It is unclear whether this conversation was related to the effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Comey.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I know of no evidence that Rosenstein was a key participant, or any kind of participant, in the firing of Comey. He wrote a memo critical of how Comey handled the investigation into Hillary's emails. The memo did not weigh the pros and cons of firing him or come to any conclusion about whether he should be fired.
Click to expand...
And the President said on television that he would have fired Comey regardless of the memo.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Not sure if the Times article counts as "evidence" or if you're just talking about legally admissible evidence, but ...

Earlier that day, Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, had pulled one of Mr. McGahn’s deputies aside after a meeting at the Justice Department. Mr. Rosenstein told the aide that top White House and Justice Department lawyers needed to discuss Mr. Comey’s future. It is unclear whether this conversation was related to the effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Comey.

...

On Monday, May 8, Mr. Trump met with Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein to discuss firing Mr. Comey, and Mr. Rosenstein agreed to write his own memo outlining why Mr. Comey should be fired. Before writing it, he took a copy of the letter that Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller had drafted during the weekend in Bedminster.

The president fired Mr. Comey the following day.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I didn't just mean admissible evidence. I would count that as evidence if it were true. But I think the memo speaks for itself and doesn't purport to outline why Mr. Comey should be fired, so I'm not confident that the author's phrasing is correct about the discussion, either. Nonetheless, I'll change "I know of no evidence" to "I know of no compelling evidence." Whether Rosenstein should recuse himself depends on what was actually said at the meeting, which I have no good info about.

 
whoknew said:
This article has some more info.

It later emerged that in May 2017, just before Trump fired Comey, Trump and an aide drafted an “angry, meandering” termination letter to Comey at the president’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The Bedminster letter was never sent. But in a meeting in the Oval Office soon after it was drafted, Rosenstein “was given a copy of the original letter and agreed to write a separate memo for Mr. Trump about why Mr. Comey should be fired,” according to the New York Times.

In short, before the Schmidt story, we knew that Rosenstein was intimately involved in the president’s decision to fire Comey. Rosenstein’s memo was used as a pretext to fire Comey; Rosenstein knew that the president wanted to fire Comey; and he read the Bedminster draft before he wrote his own memorandum.

---

Schmidt’s story yesterday added two details that make it even harder to see why Rosenstein does not have a conflict. First, Schmidt reports that, contrary to White House claims, Trump’s Bedminster letter mentioned the Russia investigation in its first sentence and described it as “fabricated and politically motivated.” Since Rosenstein saw that letter before he wrote his memorandum—and perhaps even discussed the contents with the president or attorney general prior to drafting his own second memo—he knew that the president had the Russia investigation on his mind in wanting to fire Comey. He wrote his memorandum about Comey in light of this knowledge. 

Second, after reporting that Attorney General Sessions “wanted one negative article a day in the news media about Mr. Comey” and that a Sessions staffer approached a Hill staffer about whether he or she was in possession of any “derogatory information” about Comey, a claim denied by the attorney general’s spokesperson, Schmidt added:

Earlier that day, Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, had pulled one of Mr. McGahn’s deputies aside after a meeting at the Justice Department. Mr. Rosenstein told the aide that top White House and Justice Department lawyers needed to discuss Mr. Comey’s future. It is unclear whether this conversation was related to the effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Comey.
Click to expand...
I think this is all missing a connection.

1. Rosenstein knew about some of the facts of the potential case as they happened;

2. Rosenstein oversees the Special Counsel;

3. ????

4. This should lead to recusal.

 
whoknew said:
This article has some more info.

It later emerged that in May 2017, just before Trump fired Comey, Trump and an aide drafted an “angry, meandering” termination letter to Comey at the president’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The Bedminster letter was never sent. But in a meeting in the Oval Office soon after it was drafted, Rosenstein “was given a copy of the original letter and agreed to write a separate memo for Mr. Trump about why Mr. Comey should be fired,” according to the New York Times.

In short, before the Schmidt story, we knew that Rosenstein was intimately involved in the president’s decision to fire Comey. Rosenstein’s memo was used as a pretext to fire Comey; Rosenstein knew that the president wanted to fire Comey; and he read the Bedminster draft before he wrote his own memorandum.

---

Schmidt’s story yesterday added two details that make it even harder to see why Rosenstein does not have a conflict. First, Schmidt reports that, contrary to White House claims, Trump’s Bedminster letter mentioned the Russia investigation in its first sentence and described it as “fabricated and politically motivated.” Since Rosenstein saw that letter before he wrote his memorandum—and perhaps even discussed the contents with the president or attorney general prior to drafting his own second memo—he knew that the president had the Russia investigation on his mind in wanting to fire Comey. He wrote his memorandum about Comey in light of this knowledge. 

Second, after reporting that Attorney General Sessions “wanted one negative article a day in the news media about Mr. Comey” and that a Sessions staffer approached a Hill staffer about whether he or she was in possession of any “derogatory information” about Comey, a claim denied by the attorney general’s spokesperson, Schmidt added:

Earlier that day, Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, had pulled one of Mr. McGahn’s deputies aside after a meeting at the Justice Department. Mr. Rosenstein told the aide that top White House and Justice Department lawyers needed to discuss Mr. Comey’s future. It is unclear whether this conversation was related to the effort to dig up dirt on Mr. Comey.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if all of that is true, I think there's a pretty strong argument that recusal is appropriate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I think this is all missing a connection.

1. Rosenstein knew about some of the facts of the potential case as they happened;

2. Rosenstein oversees the Special Counsel;

3. ????

4. This should lead to recusal.
Click to expand...
3. Rosenstein will be a witness (and might have liability himself) on the obstruction charges related to Comey's firing.

 
Rove! said:
Whitewater was investigated under the Independent Counsel law which had the oversight of a three judge panel.

Mueller works for the DOJ and the only oversight he seems to have is Rosenstein, who is also a key participant in the firing of Comey. If the firing of Come6 is at all a subject of the Mueller investigation, how can Rosenstein not recuse himself?  How can he oversee an investigation into an act which he participated in?  
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that wacky thing called a grand jury provides oversight.  Of course that GJ is filled with BLM loving peaceniks, so I'm sure you don't count those entities.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I know of no evidence that Rosenstein was a key participant, or any kind of participant, in the firing of Comey. He wrote a memo critical of how Comey handled the investigation into Hillary's emails. The memo did not weigh the pros and cons of firing him or come to any conclusion about whether he should be fired.
Click to expand...
Oh come on

“Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”

How can any President reading those words not seek a new director?  He states that in his opinion and the opinion of former attorney generals of both parties that the reputation of the FBI will not recover under Comey.   

Of course he’s a key participant.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
Oh come on
Click to expand...
The memo criticized some of Comey's decisions. When somebody does something that can be criticized, you can put that on the "pros" side of the list of pros and cons of firing him. But it's not a recommendation to fire him unless it tries to weigh both the pros and the cons. The obvious cons of firing him included the obstruction-of-justice stuff, or at least the appearance of it. The memo did not address those concerns. It did not weigh the pros and cons of firing Comey. It did not conclude that the pros outweighed the cons, and therefore did not conclude that he should be fired. That wasn't the subject of the memo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The memo criticized some of Comey's decisions. When somebody does something that can be criticized, you can put that on the "pros" side of the list for firing him. But it's not a recommendation to fire him unless it tries to weigh both the pros and the cons. The obvious cons of firing him included the obstruction-of-justice stuff, or at least the appearance of it. The memo did not address those concerns. It did not weigh the pros and cons of firing Comey. It did not conclude that the pros outweighed the cons, and therefore did not conclude that he should be fired. That wasn't the subject of the memo.
Click to expand...
the memo is moot anyway because Trump admitted soon after the real reason he fired him.  The memo was always a farce and Trump admitted as much.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
3. Rosenstein will be a witness (and might have liability himself) on the obstruction charges related to Comey's firing.
Click to expand...
Simply being a potential witness doesn't require an AG to recuse from overseeing a DOJ investigation.  Being a target of the investigation would.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
It's not a reason for mandatory recusal, but it's a reason that discretionary recusal would be appropriate.
Click to expand...
Would be appropriate if he decided that it would interfere and if he didn't have concerns that his recusal would lead to the entire investigation being ended.  It's a consideration, but it doesn't mean that recusal is appropriate.

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah, two pages of people discussing the fact that Rosenstein should be required to recuse himself from oversight of Mueller, but me explaining what it all means is the tangent. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Dude, would it help if I edited my post to include the below emoticon?

:P  

It's Friday, and already night where I am :banned:  

 
Has there ever been any reporting on if Rosenstein has sat for an interview with Mueller or otherwise given him a full-debrief on his actions since he became AAG?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Top